Sexting and child porn: are they any different?

Untangling "sexting" and child pornography can be a tricky legal matter. …

The difference between "sexting" and "child pornography" might seem obvious, but it's not. Take one common metric for labeling something "child porn"—was it produced voluntarily? That question has its limits.

Adults can (and do) convince minors to take sexually explicit pictures by webcam, for instance. Or they acquire pictures of kids that were created voluntarily for a boyfriend or girlfriend but were later forwarded to others or posted on the 'Net (after a bad breakup, say). Though the image might look exactly like child pornography, asking "how was this produced?" might make it difficult to prosecute those who collect and view child porn.

As a recent Harvard overview of sexting and the law notes, "Every adult who possesses or trades in child pornography could claim that the images are protected by the First Amendment, unless the government can prove they were not taken voluntarily by minors, for minors."

The paper, "Sexting: Youth Practices and Legal Implications" (PDF), was authored by Dena Sacco, the former Assistant US Attorney for Massachusetts who took the lead on child porn and obscenity cases in the states. It looks at how states might respond (and have responded) to sexting, and it cites plenty of complicated cases that go far beyond the typical "high school girl sends topless photo to boyfriend" routine. For instance:

"In Massachusetts, police were considering criminal charges after an eighth grade girl sent pictures of herself to her eighth grade boyfriend, who then sold the images to other children for $5."

"In Virginia, two male high school students, aged 15 and 18, were charged with possession of child pornography and electronic solicitation for nude and semi‐nude images of minor girls contained on cell phones after they actively solicited the photos from younger female students for trade among themselves."

In Florida, "an 18‐year‐old high school senior who had recently broken up with his 16‐year‐old girlfriend e-mailed everyone on his ex‐girlfriend’s email contact list nude images that she had originally e-mailed only to him. He was convicted under state child pornography law and required to register as a sex offender."

"In Wisconsin, a 17‐year‐old boy was charged with possession of child pornography after posting naked pictures of his 16‐year‐old ex‐girlfriend online with captions [crude captions deleted]."

"Also in Wisconsin, an 18‐year‐old was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an extortion scheme in which he tricked male classmates into sending him nude photos of themselves and then blackmailed them with exposure if they refused to have sex with him."

Given the diversity of sexting practice, what's a government to do?

Three approaches

New Jersey is considering a pair of bills that focus on education, both at school and at... cell phone stores? The state might "prohibit the sale of cell phones in retail stores that do not provide pamphlets on sexting to customers," according to the Harvard paper.

In 2009, Missouri decided to make it a misdemeanor for anyone to use a "telecommunications device knowingly or recklessly to create, receive, exchange, send or possess sexually explicit images of a minor—themselves included."

Colorado decided that people would be in the clear unless "the offender [knew] or believed that the child was younger than 15 years old at the time of the offense and the offender must have been at least 4 years older than the child."

Sacco outlines three basic legal strategies that states can pursue. First, they could simply redefine child porn to exclude voluntarily produced sexting. As noted above, this is tricky because "once it is out of the hands of the minors involved, a sexted image is indistinguishable from any other sexually explicit image of a minor." Focusing on the production of the image does nothing to address distribution and consumption, and it's easy to imagine those with a hunger for child porn sating themselves through galleries of sexted images.

Second, states can roll sexted images into the "child pornography" category. Sacco outlines some thoughtful reasons for doing this based on the harm to children caused by even voluntary images that will exist "for years to come." She also notes several surveys that show girls often feel pressure to provide sexually explicit photos to boys in a way that boys do not feel in return.

But stepping in to prevent kids from doing stupid and harmful things can also be an overreaction, especially in the less-controversial cases where material is kept between romantic partners. Should they really be exposed to the full power of the law for taking photos of behavior that is itself legal? Just being registered as a sex offender can have significant impacts on one's life.

Third, there's a "middle way" approach in which the government can criminalize all such images as child pornography, thereby avoiding all the hassle about "production" and "intent" and "coercion," and focusing only on the final product. At the same time, the law can grant "affirmative defenses" to those accused of such behavior. This could allow those who take pictures of themselves or who intentionally transmit pictures to particular people to escape prosecution, and it's an approach already under consideration in several state legislatures.

231 Reader Comments

On the main page you say: "Untangling "sexting" and child pornography can be a tricky legal matter. Turning ordinary high schoolers into sex offenders might not be the answer, but ignoring the issue altogether could help pedophiles. Here's how states are responding."

Why do you say pedophiles? There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pedophile. Maybe you mean child molester? As I've asked before, do you rape every person you are attracted to? Attraction and action, there is a huge difference.

Requiring stores to include pamphlets on sexting....I like the intention behind it, but I don't see it being very effective. Instead of passive action such as this, we should be including discussions about the implications of 'sexting' in sexual education programs that (hopefully) most of these students are already attending. Education about the legal issues and consequences couldn't hurt.

Unfortunately, as technology advances people find new and better ways of being stupid. I'm frightened to think about what issues we will be talking about when I have kids that age.......

These people should probably get in trouble•"In Massachusetts, police were considering criminal charges after an eighth grade girl sent pictures of herself to her eighth grade boyfriend, who then sold the images to other children for $5."•In Florida, "an 18‐year‐old high school senior who had recently broken up with his 16‐year‐old girlfriend e-mailed everyone on his ex‐girlfriend’s email contact list nude images that she had originally e-mailed only to him. He was convicted under state child pornography law and required to register as a sex offender."•In Wisconsin, a 17‐year‐old boy was charged with possession of child pornography after posting naked pictures of his 16‐year‐old ex‐girlfriend online with captions [crude captions deleted]."•"Also in Wisconsin, an 18‐year‐old was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an extortion scheme in which he tricked male classmates into sending him nude photos of themselves and then blackmailed them with exposure if they refused to have sex with him."

Not sure on this one•"In Virginia, two male high school students, aged 15 and 18, were charged with possession of child pornography and electronic solicitation for nude and semi‐nude images of minor girls contained on cell phones after they actively solicited the photos from younger female students for trade among themselves."

What exactly is semi-nude? is it bra and panties? shit some of the bathing suits cover up less then that. and the girls let them take the pictures right? Who were they trading with? each other or more then amongst themselves?

On the main page you say: "Untangling "sexting" and child pornography can be a tricky legal matter. Turning ordinary high schoolers into sex offenders might not be the answer, but ignoring the issue altogether could help pedophiles. Here's how states are responding."

Why do you say pedophiles? There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pedophile. Maybe you mean child molester? As I've asked before, do you rape every person you are attracted to? Attraction and action, there is a huge difference.

Give the man a cigar. Everyone who posts a comment here- everyone- needs to remember this very simple truth. Good job for posting this, pevo.

I think, as far as legality goes, distribution needs to be targeted. That is, if you distribute explicit photos of someone other than yourself (or are coerced to engage in such distribution) then you may be convicted of an offense.

In addition, technically copyright law should also cover these pictures, so in the case that a malicious ex-boyfriend sends pictures of a girl all over his school the girl should be able to sue for copyright, but I hardly see this as something that any lawyer would like to bite into.

Quote:

What exactly is semi-nude? is it bra and panties?

Semi-nude, in that case, was a girl in the bathroom with a towel around her waist and wearing nothing else. Effectively, she was topless.

Requiring stores to include pamphlets on sexting....I like the intention behind it, but I don't see it being very effective. Instead of passive action such as this, we should be including discussions about the implications of 'sexting' in sexual education programs that (hopefully) most of these students are already attending. Education about the legal issues and consequences couldn't hurt.

Yep, more information on the issue, would definitely help.

74764 wrote:

Unfortunately, as technology advances people find new and better ways of being stupid. I'm frightened to think about what issues we will be talking about when I have kids that age.......

Instant and easy video chat from generic phones would open up several possibilities. The other disruptive tech would be small video gear becoming popular, and not niche product, so that people could be photographed at parties or other comprising situations more readily.

My question is, if they go with the "middle way" approach as outlined in the article, how is a second or third hand recipient supposed to know if the image is child porn or not?

If your buddy forwards you a picture of cute chick (topless), how can you possibly verify she is over 18?In addition, the image is already on your phone, making you guilty instantly, without your approval at all.

When discussing the possiblity of just making voluntarily produced sexting images legal, the article quotes:"once it is out of the hands of the minors involved, a sexted image is indistinguishable from any other sexually explicit image of a minor."This is interesting, but only half the story. I'd change that statement to:"once it is out of the hands of the minors involved, a sexted image is indistinguishable from any other sexually explicit image."

Its not like images of minors (I am talking 16 and 17 year olds, teenagers, not pre-pubescent kids) are readily differentiatable from images of "legal" 18 and 19 year olds.

The colorado solution seems decent, but I'm sure there will be some issues with images sent to parents of the teenager in question, etc.

lemme add: porn, like movies music or games, have a wide variety of genres. some of them are: hardcore, dominance SMS, lesbianism, rape, kiddieporn....aka so called "weird" porn that is weird only to those that dont enjoy them. enjoying child porn is one of them.

heck, look at the japanese: they apparently enjoy porn where their skinny ass women cry as if they were rape victims. i hate that, but they do. does that make the japanese bad customers of porn? cmon...

I think it's trivial: keep it illegal, let the kids know that it's a complete violation and they will face criminal charges for it. If children can't handle that or if parents can't educate them, too bad.

There's no way to write a law without loopholes that can fairly distinguish between child pornography and 'sexting'. As the 'sexting' has NO redeeming value and children should NOT be doing it, just leave it in the child porn camp where it already legally belongs and then there's no issue.

The real problem that we're running in to is that the "bright line" between child pornography and adult pornography is not in reality very clear at all. This is a problem with all age-based distinctions that does not really manifest itself in other categories.

In three of the five examples in the article, you had actual peer groups that are legally considered to not be peers. The fact of the matter is that 18-year-old teenagers will have friends who are younger than them, and that causes problems because the law is artificially segmenting them into two separate categories.

That being said, I agree that the exploitation of minors should be a criminal act. The problem here is that the law does not target images produced through the exploitation of minors, it targets images that could have been produced through the exploitation of minors. In this respect it is rather similar to the DMCA's blanket ban on technologies that can be used to unlawfully circumvent DRM restrictions, regardless of how they are actually used. The ideal law should focus on images produced through the exploitation of minors.

This law would not itself criminalize any of the actions taken in the five scenarios presented in the article. Instead:

1. Probably shouldn't be a crime, instead this should be a lesson in trust. If the images were provided without restriction, then there's nothing that can be done. Defamation would be a possible angle, though I doubt it would work.2. Again, here you can cut out the word "minor" and the case evaporates. Another lesson in trust.3. Here we have an excellent opportunity for a defamation proceeding. Also, since he targeted her contact list, you might be able to swing impersonation or unauthorized use of a computer system.4. Defamation. Another object lesson in trust.5. Here we have a nice extortion case.

Honestly, the best way to reduce this behavior is not by hauling the people who disseminate these images, but by allowing those consequences to remain in existence so that the willing participants learn to become more cautious.

As an aside, shouldn't the willing participants be punished for creating child pornography, too?

EDIT: Clairfied, and just wanted to note that there were no comments when I started typing this reply. Wow.

The act of an adult making it, or distributing it, of course should be illegal. But rule 34 should inform us, and we are setting ourselves up for much needless confusion and hurt by making simple possession of child porn illegal. Especially when we charge the children themselves for taking pictures of themselves for themselves (facepalm). Of course, if an adult entices a child to take those pictures / vids, then they should risk facing a complaint from the child. If the adult was simply allowed to have the porn, and really felt secure enough that they wouldn't be resented later and face that complaint, then lucky (and foolish and sick) for them.

And of course it really doesn't help that we normally use a very high age like 18 as the cut off line below which lies child porn. Guarantees that the entire real world beginning of sexuality is extra verboten. I think maybe 10 or 11, honestly just before puberty for most people, would be a more practical and realistic line to draw. I think Colorado is leaning in the right direction with 15.

I know how much harm potential child porn has. But I must also ask how many people, mostly men of course, surf through some child porn and simply come away wiser, not pedophiles. I suspect that the nature of human sexuality insists on the questions being asked, the feelings explored. If child porn can answer that real need, preventing real world exploration of sex with children, then there is a huge benefit to balance against the harm.

On the main page you say: "Untangling "sexting" and child pornography can be a tricky legal matter. Turning ordinary high schoolers into sex offenders might not be the answer, but ignoring the issue altogether could help pedophiles. Here's how states are responding."

Why do you say pedophiles? There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pedophile. Maybe you mean child molester? As I've asked before, do you rape every person you are attracted to? Attraction and action, there is a huge difference.

Good argument, but you are still sick in the head and need to get treated if you see a little child and start having sexual thoughts about the child... or fap off to images to children getting abused.

I think it's trivial: keep it illegal, let the kids know that it's a complete violation and they will face criminal charges for it. If children can't handle that or if parents can't educate them, too bad.

And presumably underage kids who have consensual sex with each other should both be charged with statutory rape? When the "trivial" solution results in hundreds of perfectly normal people's lives being ruined, we might want to consider alternatives.

Quote:

As the 'sexting' has NO redeeming value and children should NOT be doing it

I'm pretty sure the optimal amount of sexual experimentation for teenagers is greater than zero.

These people should probably get in trouble•"In Massachusetts, police were considering criminal charges after an eighth grade girl sent pictures of herself to her eighth grade boyfriend, who then sold the images to other children for $5."•In Florida, "an 18‐year‐old high school senior who had recently broken up with his 16‐year‐old girlfriend e-mailed everyone on his ex‐girlfriend’s email contact list nude images that she had originally e-mailed only to him. He was convicted under state child pornography law and required to register as a sex offender."•In Wisconsin, a 17‐year‐old boy was charged with possession of child pornography after posting naked pictures of his 16‐year‐old ex‐girlfriend online with captions [crude captions deleted]."•"Also in Wisconsin, an 18‐year‐old was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an extortion scheme in which he tricked male classmates into sending him nude photos of themselves and then blackmailed them with exposure if they refused to have sex with him."

Not sure on this one•"In Virginia, two male high school students, aged 15 and 18, were charged with possession of child pornography and electronic solicitation for nude and semi‐nude images of minor girls contained on cell phones after they actively solicited the photos from younger female students for trade among themselves."

Yeah, the first 3 already run afoul of other statues, most likely. The 4th one I dunno. If the photos were willingly given, that's kinda totally different than the situation that allegedly occurs with production of child pornography. Furthermore, we don't know what ages the girls were (if the girl is 16 she can drive but can't chose to give pictures of herself to whomever she wants without potentially making the receiver a sex offender?).

Quote:

What exactly is semi-nude? is it bra and panties? shit some of the bathing suits cover up less then that. and the girls let them take the pictures right? Who were they trading with? each other or more then amongst themselves?

The semi-nude part made me annoyed, too. "Semi-nude" is a weasel term that people use to mean "whatever I personally think is too little clothing". For some folks this means anything other than a one-piece swimsuit. Just way too vague.

And whoever said that possession of child pornography shouldn't be a crime is more or less correct, with the caveat that you're not the producer. Possession crimes in general are just ways for law enforcement agencies to look like they're doing something without actually doing anything to effect production. It's "low hanging fruit" policing that, in the case of just about any sort of restricted porn (depends on location -- see England wanting to ban "extreme" porn and Australia's "little boobs" debacle) is meaningless in the Internet age where most folks get porn for free (that is, it doesn't really spur demand because there's no revenue gained).

...and it's easy to imagine those with a hunger for child porn sating themselves through galleries of sexted images.

Someone explain to me why this is a bad thing. If someone has a desire for that sort of thing, isn't it better for them to get their rocks off online than to leave the house, seek out a minor, and perform an actual crime? Furthermore, why do we legally stigmatize the viewing of child porn? Is this not thoughtcrime, wherein the offense does not actually have a victim and is only prosecuted in order to put away "undesireables"?

Quote:

Second, states can roll sexted images into the "child pornography" category. Sacco outlines some thoughtful reasons for doing this based on the harm to children caused by even voluntary images that will exist "for years to come."

I hope Sacco took into account the harm to children caused by a society that represses sexuality in the name of religion.

Why do you say pedophiles? There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pedophile. Maybe you mean child molester? As I've asked before, do you rape every person you are attracted to? Attraction and action, there is a huge difference.

Because in recent history our society has crossed the threshold into making laws against thought. Orwell is rolling in his grave.

I think it's trivial: keep it illegal, let the kids know that it's a complete violation and they will face criminal charges for it. If children can't handle that or if parents can't educate them, too bad.

There's no way to write a law without loopholes that can fairly distinguish between child pornography and 'sexting'. As the 'sexting' has NO redeeming value and children should NOT be doing it, just leave it in the child porn camp where it already legally belongs and then there's no issue.

So a 16 year old girl texts her bf a topless pic. She now has a conviction, has to register as a sex offender for life, can't live near a school, and is ineligible for financial aid so forget about college not that anyone would give her a job with that record. That's fair? Don't say this doesn't happen because it already has.

On the main page you say: "Untangling "sexting" and child pornography can be a tricky legal matter. Turning ordinary high schoolers into sex offenders might not be the answer, but ignoring the issue altogether could help pedophiles. Here's how states are responding."

Why do you say pedophiles? There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pedophile. Maybe you mean child molester? As I've asked before, do you rape every person you are attracted to? Attraction and action, there is a huge difference.

Good argument, but you are still sick in the head and need to get treated if you see a little child and start having sexual thoughts about the child... or fap off to images to children getting abused.

Your opinion is that someone with a sexual attraction to minors is sick. You are entitled to that opinion, but that does not mean anyone is able to push their opinion onto others. As far as I'm concerned, the only pedos who should be criminalized are those who actually molest children. There is no crime being committed otherwise.

I think it's trivial: keep it illegal, let the kids know that it's a complete violation and they will face criminal charges for it. If children can't handle that or if parents can't educate them, too bad.

There's no way to write a law without loopholes that can fairly distinguish between child pornography and 'sexting'. As the 'sexting' has NO redeeming value and children should NOT be doing it, just leave it in the child porn camp where it already legally belongs and then there's no issue.

By you standards, we should also punish sodomy and premarital sex since both "has NO redeeming value and children should NOT be doing it."

Your opinion is that someone with a sexual attraction to minors is sick. You are entitled to that opinion, but that does not mean anyone is able to push their opinion onto others. As far as I'm concerned, the only pedos who should be criminalized are those who actually molest children. There is no crime being committed otherwise.

Even though 'hacker' has long meant "someone who is a clever programmer", the media appropriated the term and made it into something bad.

Even if you think that "pedophile" is an innocent love of a prepubescent person, the media has appropriated the term and made it into something bad. You might want to find a new term to describe it because the common person reading these forums and around on the Internet associates pedophile with child molester.

Wait, I thought the legal problem was that if a child took a picture of themselves, without even distributing it, and got caught, they could be charged with a crime. That part's stupid. It should never be illegal to take a picture of yourself.

If you're trafficking in other people's pictures, that should be illegal.

pevo: It's called a taboo. It's inherently wrong because society says it's wrong. Unless, you can convince society that fantasizing about their children is OK, which seems highly unlikely, it's going to stay taboo.

Riddle me this then, two 16 year old kids get together have sex (legal in most states), she gets pregnant and they get married with their parents consent. Post birth or even during birth, "family" photos/movies are taken that show the baby being born or the mother breastfeeding. Where are we now? is the father of the child guilty of producing child porn, what about pictures of the baby naked, it's under 18, better up that to two counts there, the mom she produced the baby mise ring her up for a couple of counts too. \

That hard fast, black and white line is pretty gray when you get near it....

Put a 4 or 5 year maximum age difference limit on it, with a hard cutoff at age 20. If the child is 13, then anyone up to a 17 or 18 year old can have the porn without it being considered child porn. If they give it to someone too old for the picture's subject, then THAT person is deemed to be in possession.

It's foolhardy and rude to demand that teens may/will never make porn of themselves as they grow into their sexuality in our modern world. It's guaranteed failure, in fact (rule 34 again). We need to admit that it's as acceptable now as a diary ever was in the now bygone years of paper and prudery. That we even connect their actions with the very different issue of real child porn is absurd, regardless of how a very few (yes, only a very few) sick adult pedophiles will get more fodder from it.

I'm sorry, but we have to keep possession of child porn illegal. The primary justification is that a child is being exploited to create the photo/video. A child does not have the maturity to choose to be photographed that way. In addition, a market for child porn creates incentives to create child porn. A lucrative market for anything will attract many participants.

However, the age thing is a good point. A line does have to be drawn, but plenty of 18-year-olds date 17-year-olds. I like the laws that include a minimum age difference for prosecution, in addition to the <18 cutoff. 4 years difference is logical since that approximately covers the span of high-schoolers (grades 9-12).

As far as the question of how does a 40-year-old know if the photo subject is 18 or 17: it's your call man. You rolls the dice and takes your chances. If you are worried about prosecution, then stick to ones that look >25 years old. I don't know this to be true, but I would hope the authorities are more focused on the really young ones, eg <15, rather than the 17.5 year old kids.

The real problem I see with current kiddy porn possession laws is that there is simply no allowable defense currently, which I think is where the "third way" idea leads to. As others have pointed out, there's simply no easy way for a person to know whether a young man or woman in a photo is 18 or not. Add into that the complexities of the legal definition of what kiddy porn is, and it's a disaster. It's entirely possible to have 2 photos of the same 16 year old girl, one of her just nude, one of her in a bikini on her back in a suggestive position, and the one that will actually get you in trouble is the bikini shot. Add on top of that the number of teens who lie about their age to get onto adult sites on purpose, and it gets even more complicated. There simply is no defense for these types of situations. According to the federal law, the only 2 legal affirmative defenses to these charges to avoid 5 years minimum in the slammer are:

"(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof—(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction."

That's it. You cannot use the argument that the teenager lied; you cannot use the argument that she looked old enough to you, you cannot use the argument that in your state she's within the age of legal consent, you cannot argue that you honestly didn't know that the bikini photo was kiddy porn because she is clothed in it, and on and on.

It's important to protect children, no question about it. But the kiddy porn laws need to get more in step with statutory rape laws at the minimum.

On the main page you say: "Untangling "sexting" and child pornography can be a tricky legal matter. Turning ordinary high schoolers into sex offenders might not be the answer, but ignoring the issue altogether could help pedophiles. Here's how states are responding."

Why do you say pedophiles? There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pedophile. Maybe you mean child molester? As I've asked before, do you rape every person you are attracted to? Attraction and action, there is a huge difference.

Good argument, but you are still sick in the head and need to get treated if you see a little child and start having sexual thoughts about the child... or fap off to images to children getting abused.

Your opinion is that someone with a sexual attraction to minors is sick. You are entitled to that opinion, but that does not mean anyone is able to push their opinion onto others. As far as I'm concerned, the only pedos who should be criminalized are those who actually molest children. There is no crime being committed otherwise.

I think the line people really mean is, people who sexually attracted to humans who are not sexually mature. It's really the difference between child pornography and what the internet calls "jail bait", ie. girls who are fully sexually mature but just under 18.

I'm sorry, but we have to keep possession of child porn illegal. The primary justification is that a child is being exploited to create the photo/video. A child does not have the maturity to choose to be photographed that way. In addition, a market for child porn creates incentives to create child porn. A lucrative market for anything will attract many participants.

In the case of actual child porn, sure, but this article is about sexting. Under normal circumstances nobody is being exploited to create it.

On the one hand my emotional side says we should be protecting minors from abuse.

On the other hand, my rational side says that if it's a crime to share nude pictures of yourself with your significant other it should be a crime to BE nude with your significant other as well.

In many cases, minors are taking pictures of themselves and giving them to other minors because, lets face it, they are sexual beings or exploring their sexual side.

If a 17 year old owns a nude /picture/ of his 17 year old girl friend would be considered a crime, then surely it would be much worse crime for those same 17 year olds to be having intercourse and being naked in the same room and should be prosecuted also.

Your opinion is that someone with a sexual attraction to minors is sick. You are entitled to that opinion, but that does not mean anyone is able to push their opinion onto others. As far as I'm concerned, the only pedos who should be criminalized are those who actually molest children. There is no crime being committed otherwise.

I never said a crime had been committed, check my comment and as you point it out yourself, I think its sick.

Ask a couple of parents of young children what they think of this, because thats exactly who you are fantasizing about.

We should be thinking of (however corny it sounds) protecting the children, not seeing how early in their life we can "tap them" without legal consequences.

As far as the question of how does a 40-year-old know if the photo subject is 18 or 17: it's your call man. You rolls the dice and takes your chances. If you are worried about prosecution, then stick to ones that look >25 years old. I don't know this to be true, but I would hope the authorities are more focused on the really young ones, eg <15, rather than the 17.5 year old kids.

That distinction shouldn't be left up to law enforcement it should be put into law.

Your opinion is that someone with a sexual attraction to minors is sick. You are entitled to that opinion, but that does not mean anyone is able to push their opinion onto others. As far as I'm concerned, the only pedos who should be criminalized are those who actually molest children. There is no crime being committed otherwise.

I never said a crime had been committed, check my comment and as you point it out yourself, I think its sick.

Ask a couple of parents of young children what they think of this, because thats exactly who you are fantasizing about.

We should be thinking of (however corny it sounds) protecting the children, not seeing how early in their life we can "tap them" without legal consequences.

You missed my point. Are you stating your opinion on the matter, or asserting how you think the law should be?

Put a 4 or 5 year maximum age difference limit on it, with a hard cutoff at age 20. If the child is 13, then anyone up to a 17 or 18 year old can have the porn without it being considered child porn. If they give it to someone too old for the picture's subject, then THAT person is deemed to be in possession.

It's foolhardy and rude to demand that teens may/will never make porn of themselves as they grow into their sexuality in our modern world. It's guaranteed failure, in fact (rule 34 again). We need to admit that it's as acceptable now as a diary ever was in the now bygone years of paper and prudery. That we even connect their actions with the very different issue of real child porn is absurd, regardless of how a very few (yes, only a very few) sick adult pedophiles will get more fodder from it.

This is the "obvious solution"?No, this is TERRIBLE.Its not like these pictures come with an age stamp on them of how old the person in the picture is.

I'm sorry, but we have to keep possession of child porn illegal. The primary justification is that a child is being exploited to create the photo/video. A child does not have the maturity to choose to be photographed that way. In addition, a market for child porn creates incentives to create child porn. A lucrative market for anything will attract many participants.

Photos and videos of most crimes are not illegal to possess, and there is a market for them.

I've yet to see anyone actually show, by the way, that there's an actual market for child porn. It's referred to many times, but when you see articles about busts and convictions, it's always "trading pictures" and the like. I've never actually seen (well, since the mid-90's) a bust where there was actual "pay money and I'll make pictures of your request". Maybe it exists on a small scale, but it certainly doesn't seem common even in high-profile cases.

schizomilkman wrote:

pevo: It's called a taboo. It's inherently wrong because society says it's wrong. Unless, you can convince society that fantasizing about their children is OK, which seems highly unlikely, it's going to stay taboo.

I'd be careful with the train of thought that if something is taboo, it's also wrong. Divorce was a taboo not too long ago, as was "interracial" marriage and, well, adults enjoying porn.

While you're correct in the academic sense, people felt just as strongly about those issues as (some) people today feel about underage sex.